A Farming Revolution, Minus Factories

The larger you make a farm, the more profitable it can be for the owner. The smaller you make it, the easier it is to manage ecologically for diversity.

Making the argument that we need large-scale agriculture for innovation and investment is like saying we need large IBM mainframe computers for innovation and investment in computing.

I say let the personal farming revolution parallel the personal computing revolution. I see a future with iTractors with bicycle wheels and solar panels controlled by iPads on small farms growing food from locally selected and adapted varieties closer to where it’s consumed.

Less waste. More flavor. Better is better. You want to try one of my tomatoes?

For example, farmers use herbicide-resistant crops to prevent weeds from growing in a way that also limits plowing and soil erosion. But farmers will need to use an increased amount of herbicides. Mr. Lusk says the trade-off between no-till farming and more herbicide use is usually worth it.

But he doesn’t provide sufficient evidence that the prevention of soil erosion is more important than reducing herbicide usage. Herbicides pose health risks for humans and negatively affect the biodiversity of nearby environments.

Without comparing the harmful effects of soil erosion to herbicide use, it is difficult to determine whether farms that use this technology are actually protecting the environment.

In addition, while technology does have many benefits for more responsible farming, industrial farms employ practices that are dangerous for the environment. There is much more to consider when discussing the effect of industrial farms on the environment.

AMANDA CHAO

Richmond, Va.

To the Editor:

Jayson Lusk notes that factory farms are often criticized for putting profit ahead of animal welfare, but he says nothing else about this critical issue. It’s a surprising omission, since there are rapidly expanding technological solutions to the problem of exploited animals that also address the critical problems Mr. Lusk identifies: climate change and sustainability.

Specifically, plant-based meat and the even more innovative “clean meat” (real meat grown in factories through cellular agriculture) do not require factory-farmed animals, consume a fraction of the resources and cause much less climate change.

Mr. Lusk sets the small and inefficient farm of yesteryear against the large and more innovative farm of today, but at least in the case of what meat to eat, consumers needn’t choose the lesser of two evils; plant-based meats are available now, and clean meat will be available and cost-competitive within about a decade.

BRUCE FRIEDRICH

Washington

The writer is executive director of the Good Food Institute, a nonprofit that promotes alternatives to animal agriculture.

To the Editor:

Although I agree with Jayson Lusk that innovation and technology are important to the global future of food, factory farms are not the solution. He is overlooking a grave and well-documented issue: Factory farms are inhumane for animals.

As human beings in a world filled with pain, we need to do what we can to improve the quality of life for all living creatures, both people and animals.

JOAN RAPPOPORT ROSENFELD

New York

To the Editor:

Jayson Lusk is right that there is no inherent relationship between scale and environmental stewardship: Small farmers can be bad environmental actors, and large farmers can be good ones. But his rosy picture of modern agriculture glosses over some darker truths.

Agriculture contributes about 9 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States; it remains the leading source of river and stream contamination. Fertilizer runoff throughout the Midwest produces a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico as big as Connecticut, and millions of Americans drink water and breathe air laden with poisonous agricultural chemicals.

We need our large farms, and we should celebrate many of the innovations of contemporary farming. But the farmers responsible for these vast environmental harms should not get a pass.

It is time to modernize federal law both to eliminate the many perverse incentives that encourage harmful farming techniques and to provide farmers the support they need to improve their practices.

MARGOT J. POLLANS

White Plains

The writer is an assistant professor and faculty director of the Food Law Initiative at Pace University’s Elisabeth Haub School of Law.

To the Editor:

Only enforceable rules, well-designed incentives and public pressure lead to real changes in farming.

Jayson Lusk credits technological breakthroughs like genetically engineered seeds for the adoption of practices that have reduced soil erosion. The real reason behind such changes is that Congress made them a condition of receiving subsidies in 1985, well before the introduction of genetically engineered corn and soybeans.

And the real reason 32 percent of farmers in Maryland are planting cover crops to stem farm pollution — compared with less than 2 percent in Iowa — is not their size but the fact that the state is paying them to do so.

When it comes to farm pollution, size doesn’t matter. Big farmers may have more resources, but small family farms manage almost half of American farmland.

The heart of the problem is that all farmers are largely exempt from federal pollution laws. After spending more than $40 billion on incentives over two decades, it’s time to admit that voluntary programs alone are no match for the environmental challenges posed by farming.

What we really need is a commitment to end unregulated pollution, no matter the size of the farm.

SCOTT FABER

Senior Vice President, Government Affairs

Environmental Working Group

Washington

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A22 of the New York edition with the headline: A Farming Revolution, Minus Factories. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe